http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...n-turbines-this-is-the-death-of-fossil-fuels/ Pretty cool looking, but I have to ask the effects this would have on tidal motions et al. Also, wouldn't heavy tides/superwaves just bowl these over? I'm sure there are other possible issues I'm missing.
I thought of a couple: Fish kills and mussel encrustations. I'd think in case of very heavy seas the blades could be locked open to allow free flow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dr_Toad - in the article they say that the blades are slow enough on the full-size unit to not harm sea life (though it may daze them). And they apparently use some sort of anti-fouling coating that stops sea-life adhering/growing on it... though I have to question how they accomplish that
Duh. I obviously haven't had enough coffee. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are lots of links for anti-Zebra mussel coating, though. Most seem to be silicone-based. I pounced on the 3 m/s current, figuring that the open side of the turbine's blades have a relative speed of 6 m/s. That's pretty quick.
Would this require laying miles of electrical wires across coral reefs in So. FL and deep-water oculina reefs in Central and North Florida? Could be some environmental permitting issues there.
Here you are hardly making sense again. What are you trying to say? Did you forget how to read as you were reading the article? Really, you need to be clearer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you know what a "URL" is? If not, google it. The URL tells me the website is garbage, and I have a low tolerance for garbage, so I stopped before even clicking on it. I didn't read the article (at first -- I did go back later and look at it out of morbid curiosity. And, yep, garbage). Regarding your other post from earlier tonight, I'll need to find myself some good drugs to take before responding to it because it is batshitcrazy and I'm not in that sort of mindframe to be able to even begin to relate to what you are saying. Don't hold your breath.
Russ - care to actually comment on it, or do you just want to complain about the source? I mean, it looks like a radical design compared to what I'm used to, so I expect there to be problems... but to simply write it off a garbage, I would hope you have a reason?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...3Eg9gP&usg=AFQjCNHida40V9pCu0RnQNa6ew0cKrD2Qg The meandering of ocean currents can be up to 10 miles either way and the speed of some changes. To lay down that many turbines wouldn't be very effective for then you must hardwire the turbines to the shore so miles of underwater wires will be needed. Then you need to erect transmission towers on the shores wherever those wires come in at. All of this for very little electricity to be gathered when the turbines are working with a good current speed. There are so many variables with this system and so little electricity being made it wouldn't be worth the cost to build and maintain such a system to me.
Makes sense - it would seem to depend entirely on how much electrical power they can generate from a slow moving system - moving water only has so much kinetic energy... though thinking about it, moving water can rip entire homes from their foundations, so perhaps the issue is simply how to harness it?
Its going to take allot of money to build something like this and maintaining it will be another costly expense plust setting up the distribution system from the turbines to the areas it will be used. I don't know if the energy produced would be cost effective for we don't know how much electricity will be developed by this system.
EROEI Energy return on energy invested The winner is nuclear 2nd hydro 3rd coal 4th closed circuit gas turbine all others have minimum returns, and when you add in storage, many fail to even reach parity.
I agree with Billvon (post 8) - too many moving parts, but they could consider using a vertical wind machine design. They are actually more slightly more efficient than the conventional HAWMs, but will not self start, so small aerometer design with no parts moving wrt others could be added to start. The suggested design can make a lot of torque, but can't have circumference speed significantly faster than the flow speed. the vertical design can. HIgh torque and low speed means lot of gears - not easy under water - for most electric generators. Perhaps they should consider a 1000 pole permanent magnet generator and no gears if the can start, which could be via open circuiting all the coils and then close them in small blocks? I note they don't tell much, if anything, about their generator - how they keep conductive salt water out of it is interesting.
I imagine this being no different than wind power. It doesn't have any nasty effects on the environment, but it will likely kill a hell of a lot of fish. The design that is proposed seems like it wouldn't be efficient enough at actually collecting energy as well. edit: In reading my post I realized that I alluded to wind power killing "fish", I meant that this device would be the underwater equivalent of wind power - in that wind power kills loads of migratory birds each year
Does it have to though? I remember reading something about a wind-turbine that would be placed up in the jet stream... http://gizmodo.com/5898948/high-flying-turbine-blimps-could-cut-wind-electricity-costs-by-65-percent Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's one I hadn't seen before... this one though I remember reading about a few years ago: http://www.gizmag.com/magenn-mars-floating-wind-generator/11109/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I said the article and website were garbage, not the turbine. I don't know how you stumbled upon this, but it would have been better if after you stumbled upon it you googled for a better source to post. The turbine -- it looks ok. It's more complicated than a normal turbine so it would likely have a higher failure rate and since it relies on water flowing through the feathered "blades", it will be prone to clogging. But without a quality article describing the reason for the design choices or measurements of its efficiency or cost estimates vs a traditional turbine, there's really not much of anything to evaluate here. The bottom line, as always, is yes, an undersea turbine will generate electricity. But we already knew that. They aren't deployed widespread because of cost and reliability issues....which we also already knew. So after reading the article, we don't really know anything more than when we started. And hopefully people's knowledge and confidence in that knowledge was good enough that reading the article didn't cause them to unlearn anything due to the errors in it.
Yes I have to agree. The article cited in the OP makes breathless claims to tapping a new energy source for the first time, when in fact using marine currents for power is technology that is already in operation, for example here: http://www.seageneration.co.uk Note that the above uses a quite different type of design from the flimsy, Mickey Mouse contraption shown in the article, for which, I could not help noticing, funding is being solicited in the article. Frankly, it looks to me like a scam.
They shouldn't have to, provided they keep the water clean. A permanent-magnet generator can be entirely submerged and still work OK. I think the other problems (fouling, storm surges, wave action etc) are the larger ones.
